Coercion and Christianity:

A Biblical Critique of Rothbardian Anarcho-Capitalism

Justin Klazinga

December 11th, 2013

On the subject of defense, Murray Rothbard outlines a political theory that holds

at its core a few simple tenants that, when taken to their logical conclusions, seem

strongly to imply no need of government or governing authority to ensure the welfare of

a community, and in fact rather declaim such authority as detrimental to the welfare of

the people. The singularity of this claim in Western Society is worth noting. Even in the

past century, when the greatest number of anarchist movements began, never has such a

proposal of the abolition of governments or the disestablishment of the entire foundations

of the western world been so lightly proposed. Rothbard, whose theory was called

Anarcho-Capitalism, was by no means a revolutionary. Those who followed him were in

general seemingly honest men, rather influenced by classical liberalism’s ethics than any

insurgent propaganda.

As a political theory, Archo-Capitalism is truly said to begin with Murray

Rothbard. His books Man, Economy and State and Power and Market1 both meld

classically liberal principles and Austrian economics to derive his anarchist theory.

(Rothbard, 1962 and 1970) Immediately, in the latter book, he begins with the idea that

seems to first suggest the fault in the notion of a government. He writes that it is wrongly

supposed that the free market, existing only in a situation where the rights of private

property are enforced, thus depends upon an authority to enforce these property rights

that is not constrained by them. For example, in order to operate at all, a government in

the business of protecting the property rights of individuals, must extract from them

revenues to cover its costs. These extractions being inherently violations of private

1 To name only a few of the works wherein contains his anarcho-capitalist theories.

property, the axiom that supposes private property rights for all is thus muddied. He

declares this spoiling of the axiom unnecessary and by various examples, thought

experiments, and instance of economic analysis, he provides the theoretical framework

showing how a system, without the inherent contradiction of a government, can yet still

create a society where private property, and the auxiliaries and derivative of that right, are

enforced in their proper measure.

Considering how exactly such a society may be set up, as Rothbard does in

various places in his works, is not the concern of this paper. Rather, we look to consider

the end itself and several of the more important premises. First, we logically follow the

argument. Then, we critique it through logic, if there are any logical critiques to be made.

Thirdly, we consider it within the framework of the Christian worldview, which holds the

Bible to be perfect prescription for life on this earth. The question is an important one for

it is an outworking of the classically liberal ethical and principled system. The libertarian

philosophy, which word Rothbard himself coined, is seen by many modern philosophers

and laypeople to be at least perfectly compatible with the Christian worldview. Some

even view it as the natural outworking of Christian principles and that the best source of

support for libertarian philosophy comes from the Bible.

The actual tenants of this libertarian philosophy, to which we made passing

reference before, may be with great ease found in the works of John Locke, and

enlightenment thinker known to be father of Classical Liberalism. Without beginning too

far back in philosophy so as to be considered metaphysics, we may take the founding

principle of libertarianism to be the right all mankind has to his own property. Locke

conveniently defines property thusly:

“Though the earth, and all inferior creatures, be common to

all men, yet every man has a property in his own person:

this no body has any right to but himself. The labour of his

body, and the work of his hands, we may say, are properly

his. Whatsoever then he removes out of the state that nature

hath provided, and left it in, he hath mixed his labour with,

and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby

makes it his property.” (Locke, 1689)

Locke continued after this definition to further lay down how objects might become

property and once they were, what rights man had to his own property.

“It being by him removed from the common state nature

hath placed it in, it hath by this labour something annexed

to it, that excludes the common right of other men: for this

labour being the unquestionable property of the labourer,

no man but he can have a right to what that is once joined

to, at least where there is enough, and as good, left in

common for others.”

Locke himself quotes scripture in addition to claiming these truths to be self-evident by

reflection into human nature.

From this understanding of private property, the other tenants of libertarianism

flow. Private property being a necessary condition for human action, all the derivatives of

that theory can be said to depend upon private property. To act against the natural law of

private property is given the name coercion and held to be inherently wrong. On this

supposition is based the ethical argument against governments. Upon human action is

based the economic arguments against governments. We will take up both these

arguments in brief.

Ethically speaking, the argument is simple. If coercion is wrong because it

violates natural law, then there can be no basis for excusing anyone for coercing anyone

else, because all mankind must be subject to natural law. Therefore, there cannot exist an

entity free to coerce any human lawfully. Yet, government is by its very definition a

coercive power. A state subject to the natural law of private property bears no

characteristic to separate it from any other organization or individual under the same law.

Therefore we come to only two possible conclusions: either the natural law of private

property is correct and the existence of a State violates it or the existence of a State is

valid and there is no natural law of private property, at least as classical liberalism defines

it. Murray Rothard would certainly agree with this assertion.

The economic argument is certainly more complex. Since we are here mainly

concerned with the ethics of government, we will not treat it to the full analysis that may

be found in other works whose purpose is more expressly along these lines. The main

economic argument against the state is as follows: if we hold that humans allocated their

private property is precisely the way they think will best satisfy their ends, which they

know best for themselves, then there can be no possible way to more efficiently allocate

these private means more efficiently then by allowing mankind to fulfill their ends in

every way that they see fit, so long as that too is in keeping with the natural law. A

government, in taking away the private property of the individual, can therefore only

decrease the total benefit received by society given the application of the means to

desired ends. There is no expression or data that a government can use to properly

allocate goods according to where they would be the most benefit. Given a free market

and the ability to act and trade, individuals however can and will act and trade so as to

maximize each of their own utilities, and thereby the total utility of the entire society.

The outworking of these two arguments leaves us with no reason nor justification

for the existence generally of a government. Furthermore, the ethics of the various

specific functions governments take to themselves can be easily examined through these

general arguments. Defense, that which even many classical liberals will concede as the

natural justification of government cannot be excused from the economic inefficiencies

of any government program. When it comes to ethics, the paradox we have earlier

described shows the problems with an organization defending a right while at the same

time ignoring it. So also falls wealth distribution programs, being obviously inconsistent

with private property as well as partaking of the inefficiency of de-incentivizing

productive activity and removing efficiency of means allocation. You may go down the

list of supposed requirements for the government and knock off them all, as Rothbard

does, with both these two arguments, or whichever is the argument most persuasive to the

reader. One can imagine a cold-nosed economist being the more influenced by the

economic argument. As Christians, however, it is our part to consider first the ethical

question. Whether the economic argument be right or no, examining the ethics ought to

come first.

In order to claim any proper examination of the topic in light of scripture, we

must begin out analysis of the relevant passages without presupposition or bias. We will

start at the conclusions of the previous argument and move to its core. Therefore, we will

begin by considering what the Bible has to say concerning the existence of a government.

Another important thing to consider is the interpretation of scripture. A literal

interpretation may be well for the Gospels or the Epistles but to take every word in

Leviticus as law would be detrimental to the true Christianity. Therefore, what we find

ought to be weighed not merely for what is says on the surface but also for what it means

to Christians of the New Testament Church.

There are certainly a number of obvious verses that spring to mind when

considering the Christian view of government. The oft quoted Romans 13: 1-7:

“Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For

there is no power but of God: the powers that be are

ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power,

resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall

receive to themselves damnation. For rulers are not a terror

to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid

of the power? Do that which is good, and thou shalt have

praise of the same: For he is the minister of God to thee for

good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he

beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God,

a revenger to [execute] wrath upon him that doeth evil.

Wherefore [ye] must needs be subject, not only for wrath,

but also for conscience sake. For for this cause pay ye

tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending

continually upon this very thing. Render therefore to all

their dues: tribute to whom tribute [is due]; custom to

whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom

honour.”

The church fathers and theologians as far back as church tradition goes took similar

views of this passage. We here seem to have almost an unequivocal answer to the

question concerning the Biblical validity of the state. Not only does this passage

discourage active disobedience or rebellion to the current state, something Rothbard

never included in his political philosophy, but also discourages even a passive reaction to

the state. The passage does not merely say “the state exists therefore so long as the state

exists we ought obey it” but rather affirms not only the authority of the state but the

clearly says that such authority comes only of God. Reformer Martin Luther was fierce in

his defense of the state as being the sword-bearer of God, proscribing a very few

legitimate causes for civil disobedience, none of which can libertarianism invoke. John

Calvin was perhaps a bit more temperate in speech when he wrote:

“The reason why we ought to be subject to magistrates is,

because they are constituted by God’s ordination. For since

it pleases God thus to govern the world, he who attempts to

invert the order of God, and thus to resist God himself,

despises his power; since to despise the providence of him

who is the founder of civil power, is to carry on war with

him. Understand further, that powers are from God, not as

pestilence, and famine, and wars, and other visitations for

sin, are said to be from him; but because he has appointed

them for the legitimate and just government of the world.

For though tyrannies and unjust exercise of power, as they

are full of disorder, are not an ordained government; yet the

right of government is ordained by God for the wellbeing

of mankind. As it is lawful to repel wars and to seek

remedies for other evils, hence the Apostle commands us

willingly and cheerfully to respect and honor the right and

authority of magistrates, as useful to men: for the

punishment which God inflicts on men for their sins, we

cannot properly call ordinations, but they are the means

which he designedly appoints for the preservation of

legitimate order.” (Calvin, 1540)

and he continues:

“It is another part of the office of magistrates, that they

ought forcibly to repress the waywardness of evil men, who

do not willingly suffer themselves to be governed by laws,

and to inflict such punishment on their offenses as God’s

judgment requires; for he expressly declares, that they are

armed with the sword, not for an empty show, but that they

may smite evil-doers.”

Here Calvin certainly supports the right of state-sanctioned coercion. Indeed, it is difficult

to imagine any other meaning of the term “bearing the sword” than one that considers it a

God given gift to coerce mankind on earth. We shall consider that question in more depth

later.

Other New Testament references worth considering include Titus 3:1 which reads

“Put them in mind to be subject to principalities and

powers, to obey magistrates, to be ready to every good

work”.

Also of great importance are Christ’s own commands concerning a Christian’s

relationship with the government. When the Pharisees came to test him Christ famous

said “Render to Caesar that which is Caesar and to God that which is God’s.” This

command seems to coincide perfectly with the other scripture references we have

mentioned. The state is given by God’s its own demain wherein its authority is to be

recognized as set down by the decree of God. Jacques Ellul, in his paper Anarchism and

Christianity, does not acknowledge such an interpretation of Christ’s words. (Ellul, 1980)

Rather he considers Christ to be giving no commands referring to obedience to

government, but rather is merely stating the fact that the minted coin belongs to Caesar.

This seems a weak position to hold considering the weight and meaning the words of

Christ generally carry when he speaks in the Gospel2. Mathew Henry, in his commentary,

gives a stronger interpretation of Christ’s words. He states that the question was more

than merely is it lawful to give to Caesar the taxes he imposes, but does Caesar even have

a right to impose taxes? (Henry, 1811) Thus Christ’s answer is even more telling and

reinforces the same point seen in Romans 13.

The church prefigured in the Old Testament too exemplifies the same idea put

forth in the New. In the case of Israel, however, rather than the government being

established “merely” by the providential decree of God, the actual voice of God spoke

out and named the judges, prophets, and eventually Kings. It is to be doubted that direct

divine ordination dispelled any of the economic effects of a coercive power. Beyond the

institution of government, God also sanctioned the use of coercion by the government in

a great multitude of cases where no protection of other private property was involved.

Uzzah was struck dead directly by God himself for merely touching the Ark of the

Covenant. Cities were captured, sacked, and plundered by the people of God in direct

obedience to his will.

2 We here note that while Ellul is not an anarchist in the classically liberal school, the question he is considering is relevant to any form of anarchism seeking to reconcile itself with the scripture.

If this is now sufficient to now operate under the assumption that the Bible

sanctions the existence of government, let us now continue to examine the more specific

case of private property rights under a biblical worldview. The Bible certainly gives us

examples of persons both in possession of private property and in lawfully defending

their property. Whether the classically liberal claim that private property is an inherent

right is justified is what we must now examine.

That private property and therefore the protection of it is provided for in the Law

of Moses cannot be disputed. First and foremost, the eight commandment saying “Thou

shalt not steal” must undoubtable imply the notion of private property by protecting it.

When the Promised Land is divided and the laws for inheritance and the like are set

down, private property is being allotted, and directly by God at that. Throughout the

books of the law are provisions for the settling of disputes concerning property. The

protection of private property and the punishments for the despoilment of private

property are dealt with in no short manner. God, in setting forth the Law to His people,

clearly does not overlook or take lightly the idea of private property, nor the disposition

of man to violence and coercion. Not only is private property and it’s claims considered,

but they are taken to the minutest of details in the Law. The unmuzzling of the ox as it

treads out the grain may even fall under private property as the due wages of the beast.

Honest wages are considered the due of the laborer. (Kaiser, 2012)

So the idea of private property seems to be supported by scripture. And yet, the

idea that coercion is evil in and of itself does not seem to be. We can rationalize these

two contradictory conclusions by continuing in our examination of private property in the

Bible. We have easily found plenteous and good examples of private property in the

Bible. However, we have not yet considered the idea of private property as an inherent

human right. Libertarian philosophy, especially in a secular form, requires that private

property be self-evidently a natural law or human right. Yet in searching the Bible you

cannot conclude that it is. Everywhere in the Bible he find the institution of what might

be called “human rights” or the rights of man, you see them in the form of a covenant

made between God and man. In the covenant of works before the fall, man had

communion with God. That covenant being broken by man, God instituted a new

covenant of Grace. Throughout the Old and New Testaments God makes promises to

man and he breaks none of them. In this occasion, we do not see God abiding by the

“human right” of private property and therefore do we can conclude that he made no such

promise.

It may be said then that God intended the right of private property to be only a

right to be recognized among men. It may be argued that God commanded mankind to

keep the law of private property that he instituted in their hearts, in the Ten

Commandments, and elsewhere. However, we must not forget that God not only

approved of but commissioned governments to violate property rights, as we have

already seen. Thus private property cannot be a natural law written on the hearts of

mankind if some of mankind in permitted to break it without consequence. We have

arrived at the dilemma we saw earlier. Either the natural law of private property is correct

and the existence of a State violates it or the existence of a State is valid and there is no

natural law of private property. However, we now have concluded that the scripture

dictates our acceptance of the latter. Not only Rothbard’s Anarcho-Capitalism, but all of

Austrian economics, classical liberalism, and many of the core beliefs of western society

seem to lie in shambles at our feet. However all of these, with the exception of the first of

that list, can be rebuilt upon a firmer foundation.

With such ambitious goals, we begin again with the obvious cases of private

property in the Bible. If there is no apparent natural law ensuring private property rights,

why are there cases of private property in the Bible? Why does God enforce private

property in His Law? To find the answer, we must realize that the Bible does not ever use

the term “private property”. This is not in itself very important. There are many terms of

great theological importance not to be found in the Bible. “Trinity” for one example.

However, if we are going to understand private property and its role correctly, we must

switch our term to stewardship.

At the heart of the meaning of the term stewardship is the verse of Psalm 24 “The

earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof; the world, and they that dwell therein. For he

hath founded it upon the seas, and established it upon the floods.” This is the true private

property. At root, Locke got his definition of private property correct. God appropriated

his own work and his own knowledge and created. Thus the work of His hands is His

own. This is where we must base our theory of private property. There is no such thing as

unappropriated means. There is even no such thing as our own labor since we too are the

work of God’s hands. If private property can indeed be called a natural law, then we have

failed to realize that we are not the proprietors of property, but property ourselves.

In Genesis 2:15 we read “The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden

of Eden to work it and keep it.” This is would read very differently if it were to say that

God bequeathed to man some property to be his own. Rather, God placed man as a

keeper, just as the owner of a flock of sheep might hire one to keep the sheep. Again,

imagine if one hired a servant to keep and tend a garden. Would not. under the Lockian

definitions of property, that which is produced by the garden be yet considered the garden

owners property? How much more in this case where God himself produced the one to

work and keep the garden?

God, being the owner of all things, has placed us in this garden as stewards, rather

than property owners. Therefore, as the true property owner, He will not have his will

gainsaid. To resist the allotment of stewardship is to resist the will of God. From this fact

we can now derive the reason for God’s probation of stealing and other such crimes

against property. In ordinary speech, when we say a man has stolen from another man,

we mean that one man has deprived another of what was by right lawfully his. However,

since no goods in reality may be rightly construed as our own but merely in our keeping

due to the allocation of the father, how then can there be any wrong in taking by force

another’s man’s “property”? Because when we coerce our neighbor, we are in reality

violating the property rights of God. We are taking what He has placed in the care of

another and claiming it for our own. For example, suppose a property owner’s gardener

was working in his garden. Now suppose another man came and despoiled the garden of

its fruit. The crime here is not first and foremost a crime against the gardener, but rather a

crime primarily against the owner of the garden. So it is with us. When a man steals from

his neighbor, he does indeed injure his neighbor. However, the greater crime is the injury

done to God. Just as all sin, theft and coercion ultimately boil down to a sin against God.

Some may claim that this theory of private property is practically no different

than a theory that supposed private property to be a natural law. It may be supposed that

this is merely a “Christianization” of Locke’s definition. It is not, however. As we have

already noted, a natural law is a law that cannot be pushed aside at convenience. This

theory of property is perfectly consistent with the idea of a coercive government. There is

no paradox involved. If God is the right owner of all creation, is he not free to do with it

as he sees fit? If he chooses to destroy a piece of His creation, is it not consistent with

natural laws of private property for Him to do so? If he chooses to give any of His

creation, His property, coercive power over any other part, is this not consistent with His

right as property owner? Suppose the owner of the garden were to hire a second gardener,

to be lower in rank than the first. Suppose the owner commands that the second garden

render up stewardship of half of his produce to the first. Could this in any way be

considered unjust? It could not. God exercises perfect justice in His setting forth a

government as a wielder of the sword.

Having established the main point of this paper, namely, a critique of the ethical

argument supporting Libertarian Anarcho-Capitalism, we now turn, as we near the end,

to briefly consider some points to be made concerning the economic argument. While it

is now clear what the scripture can tell us about the ethical side of the discussion, it is less

clear how the Bible can enlighten us in the economic side. A few things we will say,

however, beginning with a quote from I Samuel 8:

“So all the elders of Israel gathered together and came to

Samuel at Ramah. They said to him, “You are old, and your

sons do not follow your ways; now appoint a king to lead

us, such as all the other nations have.” But when they said,

“Give us a king to lead us,” this displeased Samuel; so he

prayed to the Lord. And the Lord told him: “Listen to all

that the people are saying to you; it is not you they have

rejected, but they have rejected me as their king. As they

have done from the day I brought them up out of Egypt

until this day, forsaking me and serving other gods, so they

are doing to you. Now listen to them; but warn them

solemnly and let them know what the king who will reign

over them will claim as his rights.” Samuel told all the

words of the Lord to the people who were asking him for a

king. He said, “This is what the king who will reign over

you will claim as his rights: He will take your sons and

make them serve with his chariots and horses, and they will

run in front of his chariots. Some he will assign to be

commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and

others to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and still

others to make weapons of war and equipment for his

chariots. He will take your daughters to be perfumers and

cooks and bakers. He will take the best of your fields and

vineyards and olive groves and give them to his attendants.

He will take a tenth of your grain and of your vintage and

give it to his officials and attendants. Your male and female

servants and the best of your cattle and donkeys he will

take for his own use. He will take a tenth of your flocks,

and you yourselves will become his slaves. When that day

comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have

chosen, but the Lord will not answer you in that day.””

It is speaking here of the effects of coercive power in the world. It looks very nearly

exactly like the economic effects Rothbard claimed governments caused. Yet looking at

the situation again by analogy, this time not the simple garden but the whole modern

economy, can we not say that the preferences of the property owner are being satisfied?

Can we not also say that in this whole vast, complicated economy of the modern world,

ultimately the property owner is in complete control of the allocation of resources? Now,

this line of reasoning is probably not completely satisfying. Certainly it can be accused

on neither being very practical nor very novel. Christians have always known ultimately

that everything will come out right. How does this allow us to choose our line of action in

the present? The answer may be that it isn’t particularly helpful in that respect. However,

it is always good to remember that though all the troubles prophesied as accompanying a

monarchy came to Israel, yet it was God’s plan that they should have a king, for through

the kingship started that day, all the world would be saved. We do not completely know

why God has ordained that coercive governments should rule over us, but we do know

that it will come to right in the end.

Thus we have traced the biblical argument against Rothbardian Anarcho-

Capitalism. While given the initial tenets of classical liberalism and Austrian economics

we cannot help but come to the non-biblical conclusion that coercive governments are

wrong., through biblical teaching we have established modified tenets the can support

the whole while being in perfect conformity with our faith.

Works Cited

Calvin, Jean. 1540. Calvin, commentaries. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Christian Classics

Ethereal Library, 1999.

Ellul, Jacques. "Anarchism and Christianity." Katallagete Fall (1980): 14-24.

Henry, Matthew. 1811. Mathew Henry's commentary on the whole Bible. Peabody:

Hendrickson Publishers, 1991.

Kaiser, Walter C. Jr.. "Ownership and Property in the Old Testament Economy." Journal

of Markets and Morality 15, no. 1 (2012): 227-236.

Locke, John. 1689. The second treatise on civil government. Amherst, N.Y.: Prometheus

Books, 1986.

Rothbard, Murray Newton. Man, economy, and state; a treatise on economic principles..

Princeton, N.J.: Van Nostrand, 1962.

Rothbard, Murray Newton. Power & Market; government and the economy,. Menlo Park,

Calif.: Institute for Humane Studies, 1970.